Talk:Budapest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for Budapest: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:


Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Budapest as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Czech language Wikipedia.
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated Start-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Archive
Archives

Pre-2007
January-September 2007


Contents

[edit] Reference

Those who have written most of the article please provide your source. Thank you. Squash Racket 08:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology of Pest

The word Pest (or Peshta) is thought to originate from the Bolgar language, (thought to be a Turkic language, not related to modern Bulgarian, which is a Slavic language) because at the time of the reign of the Bulgarian Khan Krum (approximately 796-814), the town was under Bulgar dominion.

The word means "oven" in archaic Hungarian as well as in most other Slavic languages. As far as I know, no Slavic etymological dictionary traces the word to Bulgar Turkic. It is very well integrated in the old layers of Slavic, and manifests classical sound correspondences and consonant alternations suggesting that it is a proto-Slavic root (Bulgarian пещ - Russian печь, etc). --91.148.159.4 10:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added 2 important lines in intro

"Dubbed by Westerners as "Paris of the East", "Pearl of the Danube", "Little Paris" and "The City of Baths"[3], Budapest is considered an essential Central European hub[4], especially since the downfall of the Communist regime in Hungary." Something like this was sorely missed from the Eng. version -- seeing how Prague for instance was described as "one of the most beautiful cities in Europe" (I agree). Check my sources if you will. The page shows serious neglect when compared to the entries of other Central European capitals. Gregorik 21:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

See archived talk page on this. You may start an RfC, but for now please respect hardly reached concensus. Thank you.
I left in the other part of the sentence, but it sounds like a brochure, not an encyclopedia. Squash Racket 05:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Intro was essentially empty without these additional lines. OK, I am sorry, will respect. Gregorik 08:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rehauling the History section

Did some major rehaul but others might object. Much of the text comes from http://www.budapest.com/history.html, but revised. Seems it's all approved by tom@budapest.com. Timeline is translated from http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest. Gregorik 13:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The history section does have a lot of good information, but it seems to take up a bit too much of this article, which is on all aspects of Budapest, not just its history. As of now, no "History of Budapest" article exists; maybe this information should be used to create it, with only a brief summary of Budapest's history given here. Also, the intro seems to contain information that would better fit in the History section of the article. Just some suggestions. Rising*From*Ashes (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I am extremely sceptical about this "Ak Ink" name. This appears to be a clumsy attempt by a contributor to a mid-19th Century edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica to explain the name by reference to his idea of how ancient Celts spoke - in grunting monosyllables as befits a "barbarian" people. A settlement whose name meant "abundant spring water" would be something like *digandikodubro-. I think we must look elsewhere for the etymology of the Roman name. -Paul S 21:30 9 April 2008

[edit] Famous people of Budapest entry to be finalized later

When I have the time; please don't delete it, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregorik (talk • contribs) 10:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Layout

This page's layout is awful. "Buda by night" image that covers some text. Please, fix it. --84.122.25.184 (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC).

That was me. I'm sure you use a non-wide display. The page is now optimized for widescreen, as most pages should be as of 2007-8. I am sorry. Gregorik (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Budapest.com is an unreliable source

Budapest.com is not an independent source. The city tried to buy it, but it is still in the hands of Tamás Pick [1]. I advise editors to remove all references to budapest.com and replace those with reliable sources. Squash Racket (talk) 08:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Agreed. It is also full of advertisements. May qualify as linkspam. Alan.ca (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The city did not try to buy the domain from the owner, but they wanted to sue him to get it. Anyway the domain is handled by hungarian company from the end of 2007. A new portal has been launched in April 2008 and its aim is to promote Budapest and services available and to serve leisure and business travellers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Szaboz 75 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Too many photos!

Ok, the photos are nice to look at, but they are better served from a commons photo gallery. As I have not contributed greatly to the selection of these photographs I implore those involved to cut the content by at least half. 15:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I was the one to add most of the photos. I now agree that I overdid it, but a consensus should be reached as this IS one of the most beautiful cities I've ever seen and it should show in the article. Gregorik (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Famous people

I have moved this content to Budapest/famous people. The content definately doesn't belong in this article, possibly a category could be created that would be included in the articles of each of these individuals to link them to Budapest. Alan.ca (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That list involved plenty of work. For now I've relegated it to the back of the article (until a consensus is reached). I think similar 'famous people' lists should be commonplace in ALL articles about towns with some cultural significance. Would add tremendously to the articles. Gregorik (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • To preserve the content, I have created the main space article List of famous people of Budapest. You will find this to be the norm on Wikipedia. Discussions on this issue have taken place on the WP:CITY project. Alan.ca (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
A current 'norm' does not have to mean that it's not debatable. I've looked into the 'Notable natives' discussion at WP:CITY and found that the intelligent entries there all argue for such sections within city articles. Much of the arguments against 'Notable natives' sections is ludicrous. Alan.ca and those involved, excuse me. I think it goes without saying that city articles suffer without 'famous natives' sections, but majority wins. Gregorik (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing

There is no geography section in the article and climate data is also missing. I looked up the average monthly temperatures for Budapest: [2]. If anyone knows how to make nice tables and charts, please don't hesitate to help out. Thanks, (Einstein00 (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC))

Nevermind. I just did it. (Einstein00 (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Reliable references

I'm removing unreliable sources. From now on please add only reliable sources in encyclopedic format. Thank you. Squash Racket (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sport?!

This is the first city article I've come across without a Sport section. Can someone remedy this? Grunners (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Status of Budapest through cleanup

I have initiated a clean-up of the Budapest article. I have forked the history content to History of Budapest. The goal is to clean up the new article and then provide a summary of it in the main Budapest article. This beautiful city has a lot of history to write about and I would appreciate any help I can get on this. Alan.ca (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll help as promised but I might add that forking to History of Budapest might've been an overkill. Started a cleanup of that article, a choice few of the photos may need to come back in Budapest, incl. a wide image. Excuse me for these remarks. Gregorik (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
It is my hope to improve this article through collaboration, in this endeavour your point of view has great value. If you can work to improve the history article, we can then summarize it in the main article. I forked the content because large, lower quality articles tend to stagnate. Alan.ca (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV in lead

I think this paragraph in the lead section is POV and I added {{Request quotation}}. I checked some of the sources and they didn't seem to verify what the article said. The text is also composed mostly of weasel words.

Widely regarded as one of the most beautiful cities in the world[1][Quotation needed from source][2][Quotation needed from source], Budapest is considered an important Central European hub[3][Quotation needed from source] for business, culture and tourism. Its World Heritage Sites include the banks of the Danube, the Buda Castle Quarter, Andrássy Avenue and the Millennium Underground railway, the first on the European continent[1][4]. Budapest attracts over 20 million visitors a year[5], making it one of the top destinations in Europe.[Quotation needed from source] The city ranks 74th on Mercer Consulting's 'World's Top 100 Most Livable Cities' list[6].

  1. ^ a b Nomination of the banks of the Danube and the district of the Buda Castle. International Council on Monuments and Sites. Retrieved on 2008-01-31.
  2. ^ Budapest Is Stealing Some of Prague’s Spotlight. The New York Times (2006-10-03). Retrieved on 2008-01-29.
  3. ^ Doing Business : Budapest, the soul of Central Europe. International Herald Tribune (2004-08-04). Retrieved on 2008-01-29.
  4. ^ World Heritage Committee Inscribes 9 New Sites on the World Heritage List. Unesco World Heritage Centre. Retrieved on 2008-01-31.
  5. ^ Budapest City Guide. European Rail Guide. Retrieved on 2008-02-04.
  6. ^ World's Top 100 Most Livable Cities. Business Week. Retrieved on 2008-01-31.

Vints (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quotations

ICOMOS:

However, a conservation policy for the whole of the urban area of Budapest, a metropolis with more than 2 million inhabitants, should be strongly recommended to the Hungarian government so that one of the most beautiful urban landscapes in the world may be preserved.

NYT:

A spectacularly beautiful and subversively lively old royal capital, Budapest

IHT:

Budapest is an expanding regional hub as Central Europe becomes integrated into the European Union.

European Rail Guide:

Lying in north-central Hungary on the banks of the river Danube, Budapest attracts almost twenty four million visitors annually.

Squash Racket (talk) 11:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I did check the sources before requesting quotes. ICOMOS doesn't say it is "widely regarded...", neither does NYT, and European Rail Guide doesn't say it is "one of the top destinations in Europe". IHT says Budapest is "expanding regional hub" (keep in mind that Central Europe includes rich countries like Switzerland and Germany). Mercer Consulting's list does, imo, not belong in the lead of an encyclopedic article. Compare for example the corresponding articles in Encarta and Columbia Encyclopedia, [3] [4]. Vints (talk) 07:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I changed [5] to "Regarded by many as a beautiful city", and removed the sentences about "an important Central European hub" (the lead already says "serves as the country's principal political, cultural, commercial, industrial and transportation center") and the 'World's Top 100 Most Livable Cities' list. The list perhaps belongs to some section in the article. Vints (talk) 07:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Source says "one of the most beautiful urban landscapes in the world" (probably ICOMOS knows a thing or two about that). (In fact I changed it to "Regarded by many", you removed the sourced part.) "Important Central European hub" describes what the source says, the other sentence only mentions Budapest as Hungary's most important center.
Feel free to move the list from Business Week to another (possibly new) section of the article, but your simple deletion will be reinserted. Thank you. Squash Racket (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
ICOMOS doesn't say "widely regarded": yes, they simply say it is one of the most beautiful urban landscapes in the world.
European Rail Guide doesn't say "one of the top destinations in Europe": yes, but if you have 24 million visitors a year, maybe that is simply true (removed that part btw).
If you cite sources in the exact same way as the original, it is considered copyright violation here on Wikipedia, so you need to change the sentences at least a bit.
It would be constructive to help the article grow and not hold it to FA standards, as right now it is not even a GA. Squash Racket (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was the one who wrote about 75% of the lead back then, and it's sad to see it being dismantled by Vints, who almost seems to have something personal against this city. Again, when ICOMOS says it is one of the most beautiful urban landscapes in the world, it reflects a.) expert opinion, b.) international consensus on the subject, and nothing to do with weasel words. Excuse me, Vints. Gregorik (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)